www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 7:37 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> I disagree that testing is necessary to vote +1.
That's the language of the existing policy.
## What are the ASF requirements on approving a release? ##
{#approving-a-release}
Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use [majority
approval](http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval)
-- i.e., at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release,
and there must be more positive than negative votes. Releases may not be
vetoed. Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the signed
source code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting
executable on their own platform, along with also verifying that the
package meets the requirements of the ASF policy on releases.
I personally favor liberalizing the policy at some time in the future, but
that's outside the scope of this initiative. In the meantime, I think
removing testing from the policy is unwise not only because it pollutes this
initiative with policy changes, but because liberalizing a strict policy is
easier than imposing new constraints.
If the language of the existing policy were to be changed via a separate
action prior to the adoption of this initiative, I would favor changing the
proposal's draft language to match -- but I oppose conflating the two
concerns.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org